Jurisdiction of assessing authority and rejection of account books upheld where assessment work was validly assigned and books were not produced.

Where the competent taxing authority validly assigns assessment work within the prescribed circle, an officer acting in a dual capacity as Sales Tax Officer (Administration) may lawfully serve as the assessing authority, so the assessment is not without jurisdiction. The officer's authority was supported by transfer and specific assignment orders, and there was no statutory bar to such delegation. Separately, rejection of account books was upheld because the assessee failed to produce them during assessment proceedings, and that evidentiary default remained valid even though the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh assessment. The two questions were treated as distinct, and the revision failed on both.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessment order was without jurisdiction because it was passed by the Sales Tax Officer (Administration) rather than the officer said to be the proper assessing authority; and (ii) whether the rejection of the assessee's account books was unsustainable merely because the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh assessment.

Issue (i): whether the assessment order was without jurisdiction because it was passed by the Sales Tax Officer (Administration) rather than the officer said to be the proper assessing authority.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated as assessing authority any person authorised by the State Government, and the rules contemplated a circle, sub-circle and the determination of jurisdiction among multiple sales tax officers. The orders of the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner showed that the officer concerned had been transferred to Aligarh, appointed as Sales Tax Officer (Administration) for the circle, and specifically assigned assessment work in respect of cases placed before him. There was no statutory prohibition against such dual capacity where the competent authority had so authorised the officer. The assessment proceedings had also been specifically transferred to him for completion.

Conclusion: The assessment was held to be valid and within jurisdiction, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the rejection of the assessee's account books was unsustainable merely because the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh assessment.

Analysis: Rejection of account books and the quantum of best judgment assessment are distinct matters. The books were rejected because the assessee did not produce them during assessment proceedings, which furnished a valid ground for rejection. The Tribunal's remand was made to enable verification of materials and to afford an opportunity to the assessee to explain the adverse material, and that course did not negate the earlier rejection of the account books.

Conclusion: The rejection of account books was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on both substantial questions and the assessment order, as upheld by the Tribunal on the material issues, remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent taxing authority validly assigns assessment work within a circle under the statutory rules, the officer so assigned can lawfully act as assessing authority; separately, account books may be rejected on a valid evidentiary default even if the assessment is remanded for fresh quantification.

---